Haribhadra on Property Ownership of Buddhist Monks
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) Vol. 13, No. 5 (2017) 1-12 HARIBHADRA ON PROPERTY OWNERSHIP OF BUDDHIST MONKS Yutaka Kawasaki [0.1] It is a well-known fact that one of the qualities expected of renouncers in ancient India was to have freedom from attachment to worldly concerns. The Jains have treated attachment and ārambha, which means “intentional activity” or rather “violence,” as two of the most fundamental sins.1 They have listed aparigraha “non-attachment” as one of the five mahā- / aṇu-vratas. 2 Although the word aparigraha itself can denote “renouncing any material possessions,” we read in Dasaveyāliya VI 20-21, which is regarded as one of the “seniors” of the Śvetāmbara Jain scriptures:3 Garment, bowl, woolen cloth, or broom — [the Jain mendicants] keep and carry such goods for [their] restraint and the sense of shame. Nāyaputta the savior said that such [a garment etc.] is not parigraha. The great sage said that parigraha means infatuation (mūrcchā).4 This psychological interpretation was inherited by the famous definition of Umāsvāti’s Tattvārthādhigamasūtra VII 12: “mūrcchā parigrahaḥ”. This definition is regarded as authoritative to the present day. * This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP24720027 and JP15K16620. 1 On this point, see Dixit 1978: 5, who also argues: “Taken as a whole parigraha signifies attachment for things worldly - where ‘things’ include both the material goods and the social relative and ārambha the acts injurious to others undertaken with a view to satisfying the demands of this attachment” (pp. 18f.). 2 On the five mahā- and aṇu-vratas found in the Śvetāmbara Jain scriptures, see Schubring 1935: 187f. (aṇu- vratas) and pp. 189-91 (mahā-vratas). 3 Except for the translation of the Suttanipāta, the translations given in this paper are the author’s. 4 jaṃ pi vatthaṃ va pāyaṃ vā kambalaṃ pāyapunchaṇaṃ / taṃ pi saṃjama-lajjaṭṭhā dhārenti pariharanti ya // 20// na so pariggaho vutto nāyaputteṇa tāiṇā / 'mucchā pariggaho vutto ii vuttaṃ mahesiṇā // 21// 1 [0.2] To my knowledge, Indian Buddhism has neither used aparigraha as a technical term as Jainism did, nor included the practice of aparigraha into the five or ten śīlas. But using the very word pariggaha (Skt. parigraha), the Buddha himself is believed to stress the importance of the freedom from attachment.5 For example, in the Suttanipāta, one of the oldest parts of Pāli Buddhist scriptures, we can find the following verses:6 Now on the other hand I shall tell you the way of life of a householder, [and] how acting he becomes a good disciple. For the entire bhikkhu practice cannot be carried out by one of who has possessions (pariggaha).7 People grieve for their cherished things, for no possessions (pariggaha) are permanent. Seeing that this separation truly exists, one should not live the household life.8 [0.3] However, while Jainism basically has maintained such an ideal of non-attachment which has made the Jain monks and nuns keep the lifestyle of poverty and itinerancy till today, scholars showed that Indian Buddhism gradually accepted sedentary life, and that Buddhist monks, living in monasteries permanently, received large donations from laity and accumulated various kinds of properties.9 The Dhammasaṃgahaṇi, which was reportedly composed by the eminent Śvetāmbara monk Haribhadra Yākinīputra (8th or 9th century10 ), tells us of such a situation in Buddhist monastic life. It also delineates the grounds for the possession of properties that the Buddhist monks themselves are said to have insisted on. In the following, I shall explore how Haribhadra criticizes his opponent’s claims and how his opponent argues back against Haribhadra in order to defend property ownership of Buddhist monks. 5 On the concept of (a-)pariggaha in Theravāda Buddhism, see Inaba 2011. 6 Translation by Norman 2001. Pāli words in the brackets are added by the author. 7 gahaṭṭhavattaṃ pana vo vadāmi yathākaro sāvako sādhu hoti / na h’ eso labbhā sapariggahena phassetuṃ yo kevalo bhikkhudhammo //393// 8 socanti janā mamāyite na hi santi niccā pariggahā / vinābhāvasantam ev’ idaṃ iti disvā nāgāram āvāse //805// 9 See, for example, Schopen 2004, Tasaki 1990, and Yamagiwa 2002. 10 This Haribhadra has been regarded as a person of 8th century (for example, see Williams 1965). However, Qvarnstrӧm 1999 suggests that Haribhadra in his Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya extracted a verse from Bhaṭṭa Jayanta’s Nyāyamañjarī, viz., that Haribhadra flourished in the 9th century. On this issue, see also the resent study about Bhaṭṭa Jayanta, Marui 2014: 38-40 which basically approves of Qvarnstrӧm’s view. 2 [1] Dhammasaṃgahaṇi 986 says that some “fools” think that even the possession of properties in villages and so forth11 is faultless because it is the cause of the growth of “three jewels”.12 Since the verse 987 states that the “three jewels” are Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha,13 it is doubtless that these “fools” are the Buddhists. Haribhadra refutes their views in the following way: But the possession [of properties] in villages and so forth is neither beneficial to, nor gives pleasant results to these [three jewels]. You should understand that [the possession of properties in villages etc.] is harmful, for [such a possession] brings forth the intentional activity (ārambha).14 The point of Haribhadra’s assertion is that the possession of properties sets off the intentional activity, which inevitably conduces to the violence. In other words, Haribhadra’s criticism is based on the ethos of non-violence. [2] But the Buddhist opponent argues back that a monk who commits ārambha is faultless if he fulfills a certain requirement. “When, being free from possessiveness (mamattarahia / Skt. mamatvarahita), one engages in intentional activity only for the sake of the three jewels, one 11 The definition of apariggaha in Dhammasaṃgahaṇi 860 “avoiding of small and large [amount of the properties] in villages and so on” (gāmādisu appabahuvivajjanaṃ) seems to indicate that gāmādipariggaha- of verse 986 is a locative-tatpuruṣa compound to be translated as “the possession [of properties] in villages and so on”. However, as we will see at the section [7], in vv. 1007-9 the Buddhist opponent and Haribhadra dispute about the possession of 960 million villages by the universal emperor Bharata. This dispute suggests that the expression gāmādipariggaha- implies the possession of villages themselves. We know that villages had been donated to the Indian Buddhist Saṅgha (this does not mean that the Buddhist monks themselves owned villages individually). To cite a case, the Korean Buddhist monk of 8th century Hyecho (慧超) reported in his travelogue of five Indic regions Wǎng wŭ Tiānzhúguó zhuàn (往五天竺國傳) that Indian kings and queens donated villages and their inhabitants to the Buddhist Saṅgha at the same time when they donated temples. On this report, see Kuwayama 1992: 36. On further traces about the possession of villages and lands by the Buddhist Saṅgha recorded in the Vinayas and the inscriptions, see Tasaki 1990. I would like to thank professor Fumio Enomoto (Osaka University) who kindly told me about Hyecho’s report. 12 anne niddosaṃ ciya gāmādipariggahaṃ pi mannaṃti / rayaṇatigavuḍḍhihetuttaṇeṇa parithūrabuddhīyā //986// 13 rayaṇatigaṃ iha buddho dhammo saṃgho ya. According to Haribhadra, Buddha is a fruit of the “perfections” (pāramitā), Dharma is the Āgama or the infallible words of the Buddha, and Saṅgha is the group of persons who practice the Buddhist asceticism (dhūtaguṇa): buddho pāramiyāphalam aṇaghaṃ tavvayaṇam āgamo dhammo / dhūtaguṇāṇuṭṭhāī sattāṇaṃ samudayo saṃgho //988// 14 na ya etes’ uvayāro gāmādipariggaho suhapphalado / āraṃbhapavittīo avi avayāro muṇeyavvo //989// 3 should be regarded as faultless - even if [one is] a Buddhist monk (bhikkhu / Skt. bhikṣu).”15 The point we should notice here is that the Buddhist opponent refers to “being free from possessiveness”16 and “only for the sake of the three jewels.” Whether or not a monk really possesses properties does not mean much. What is intrinsically important is that his mind is free from possessiveness and that the purpose of his acquisition of possessions and of ārambha is only the support of the “three jewels.” These two requirements are essential to make the property ownership of Buddhist monks and the subsequent ārambha faultless. Haribhadra denies this claim in the following manner17: Having stopped meat[-eating], one [names meat] daṃtikkaga18 and enjoys [meat- eating] on the ground of the difference of the word. Having abandoned intentional activity, a fool practices [the very intentional activity] on the ground of the different expression.19 When [an act] is essentially sinful, it is prohibited absolutely [to do it] even if [one expresses it in] a different sound [which does not represent its true nature]. For instance, even if [one names a poison] a sweet [, it never becomes harmless], or even if [one names hot water] a cold [, it burns his skin20] in this world.21 This criticism reminds me of a traditional byname of alcoholic beverages in Japan.22 While 15 siya jo mamattarahio rayaṇatigaṃ ciya paḍucca āraṃbhe / vaṭṭai bhikkhū vi tao niddoso ceva vinneo //990// 16 On the importance of the freedom from mamatta in Pāli Buddhism, see Inaba 2014. 17 The following two verses appear in Pañcavatthuga 1.99-100 of Haribhadra (Virahāṅaka?) too. 18 The etymon of daṃtikkaga is not clear for me. Is it Skt. *dāntīkyaka which is derived from danta “tooth” and means like “food which should be masticated by one’s teeth,” or a pure deśya word? 19 maṃsanivattiṃ kāuṃ sevai daṃtikkagaṃ ti dhaṇibhedā / iya caiūṇāraṃbhaṃ paravavaesā kuṇai bālo //991// 20 Cf. Malayagiri’s commentary on 992: kim iva punaḥ śabdabhede ’pi sati viruddham ity ata āha mahurety-ādi loke madhurakaśītalikādivat, nahi viṣaṃ madhuram ity uktaṃ sat na vyāpādayati sphoṭikā vā śītalikety uktā satī na tudati, tathārambho ’pi kriyamāṇaḥ parārtham ity ucyamāno ’pi prakṛtyā sāvadyatvāt paralokaṃ bādhata eveti.